Move an Omarchy bar widget (verified)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool moves and verifies the final location, but does not disclose what 'verify' means (e.g., whether it returns a success flag, the new position, or an error), nor any side effects like requiring the widget to exist or whether the operation is reversible. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool without annotations or an output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, direct sentence that leads with the action and primary target. There is no extraneous information, and the core purpose is communicated efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description should fully explain behavior and return expectations. It only states the action and verification intent, leaving unclear what the verification result looks like, how errors are handled, and how the index interacts with existing widget order. For a mutation tool, this lacks critical operational context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (only 'id' has a description). The tool description does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics. It rephrases 'section' and 'index' as 'exact bar section/index' but adds no detail about valid values, ordering, or relationships (e.g., whether index is relative to other widgets). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Move', the resource 'an existing widget', and the target location 'exact bar section/index', and includes verification. This is specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings like bar_visibility_set or bar_position_set, which operate on the bar itself rather than individual widgets. The word 'verified' in the title further clarifies the expected outcome.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for repositioning widgets within the bar, nor does it contrast with plugin_local_enable/disable or other widget-related operations. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.